# Raj Kishore Tewari v. Govinda Ram Bhansali

- **Citation:** [1964] 5 S.C.R. 121
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-01-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raj-kishore-tewari-v-govinda-ram-bhansali-2964
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

l
•
/
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
was made. It would be a matter for consideration
1963
at the appropriate time whether there can be any
--
exception to this general rule that the entire property Bhagwati Prasad
sold must be pre-empted by the pre-emptor in his
Sah
suit.
v.
·
. .
Bhagwati Prasad
I would therefore rest my dec1S1on on the facts
s: h
that the sale of the lease-hold interest in land is not
_a_
pre-emptible and that the super-structure of the house Raghubar Dayal
is also not pre-emptible and that therefore the plaintiffJ
pre-emptor cannot pre-empt the sale of the property
·
sold. I therefore agree that the appeal be allowed,
the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and the High
Court be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored
and that the appellants would have their costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
RAJ KISHORE TEWARI
v.
GOVINDARAM BHANSALI
(P.B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. SUBBA
RAO,
K.N.
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions)
Act, 1950 (Act 17of1950), s. 13 (2).-Determination of sub tenancyWhether tenancy starts from the date of ejectment of the tenant of
the first degree-Effect of s. 13 (2).
The appellant was a sub-tenant of S on a monthly basis commencing from April I, 1954. S was the tenant of the Respondent
from September 15, 1943 on a monthly rental. On June 16, 1955,
the respondent obtained a decree of ejectment against S.
In view
of sub-s(2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control
(Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the appellant became the tenant
of the respondent after the determination of the tenancy of S .
The respondant gave a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver
posse\sion of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April
1963
October JO
1963
Raj Kishore
Tewari
v.
Govinda Ram
Bhansali
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1957, since he being a statutory tenant had not paid rent since
June 16, 1955. The respondant instituted a suit for ejectment,
which was decreed, and an appeal to the High Court by the appellant
was unsuccessful. On appeal by special leave, it was contended
that the notice was invalid for under the law the notice must be
to require the appellant to deliver possession on the expiry of the
month of tenancy, that the tenancy was from the 16th of a month
as the decree for ejectment against S was passed on June 16, 1955
and that this notice required the delivery of possession on the expiry
of the last day of April.
Held: The contention was untenable and rightly rejected by
the High Court.
The provisions of Sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Rent
Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 only lay down that the
sub-tenant would become the tenant of the landlord if the tenancy
in-chief is determined, on the same terms and conditions on which
the sub-lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy
of the tenant had not been determined. This means that the terms
and conditions of the tenancy between the erstwhile sub-tenant
and the landlord continue to be the same which were the terms
and conditions of the sub-tenancy. The period of monthly tenancy
commencing from the first of the month and expiring on the last
day of the month, was in no way affected by the provisions of Sub-s.
(2) of s. (13) whose effect was simply that the sub-tenant instead
of being sub-tenant of the tenant who had been ejected, got a
direct connection with the landlord and became his tenant-inchief.

## Text

l
•
/
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
was made. It would be a matter for consideration
1963
at the appropriate time whether there can be any
--
exception to this general rule that the entire property Bhagwati Prasad
sold must be pre-empted by the pre-emptor in his
Sah
suit.
v.
·
. .
Bhagwati Prasad
I would therefore rest my dec1S1on on the facts
s: h
that the sale of the lease-hold interest in land is not
_a_
pre-emptible and that the super-structure of the house Raghubar Dayal
is also not pre-emptible and that therefore the plaintiffJ
pre-emptor cannot pre-empt the sale of the property
·
sold. I therefore agree that the appeal be allowed,
the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and the High
Court be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored
and that the appellants would have their costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
RAJ KISHORE TEWARI
v.
GOVINDARAM BHANSALI
(P.B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. SUBBA
RAO,
K.N.
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions)
Act, 1950 (Act 17of1950), s. 13 (2).-Determination of sub tenancyWhether tenancy starts from the date of ejectment of the tenant of
the first degree-Effect of s. 13 (2).
The appellant was a sub-tenant of S on a monthly basis commencing from April I, 1954. S was the tenant of the Respondent
from September 15, 1943 on a monthly rental. On June 16, 1955,
the respondent obtained a decree of ejectment against S.
In view
of sub-s(2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control
(Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the appellant became the tenant
of the respondent after the determination of the tenancy of S .
The respondant gave a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver
posse\sion of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April
1963
October JO
1963
Raj Kishore
Tewari
v.
Govinda Ram
Bhansali
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1957, since he being a statutory tenant had not paid rent since
June 16, 1955. The respondant instituted a suit for ejectment,
which was decreed, and an appeal to the High Court by the appellant
was unsuccessful. On appeal by special leave, it was contended
that the notice was invalid for under the law the notice must be
to require the appellant to deliver possession on the expiry of the
month of tenancy, that the tenancy was from the 16th of a month
as the decree for ejectment against S was passed on June 16, 1955
and that this notice required the delivery of possession on the expiry
of the last day of April.
Held: The contention was untenable and rightly rejected by
the High Court.
The provisions of Sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Rent
Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 only lay down that the
sub-tenant would become the tenant of the landlord if the tenancy
in-chief is determined, on the same terms and conditions on which
the sub-lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy
of the tenant had not been determined. This means that the terms
and conditions of the tenancy between the erstwhile sub-tenant
and the landlord continue to be the same which were the terms
and conditions of the sub-tenancy. The period of monthly tenancy
commencing from the first of the month and expiring on the last
day of the month, was in no way affected by the provisions of Sub-s.
(2) of s. (13) whose effect was simply that the sub-tenant instead
of being sub-tenant of the tenant who had been ejected, got a
direct connection with the landlord and became his tenant-inchief.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
150 of 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated January 9, 1962 of the Calcutta High
Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 48 of
1961.
N.C. Chatterjee, R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwal, M.K.
Ramamurthi and D.P. Singh, for the appellant.
M.C. Setalvad and B.P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
October 10, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Raghubar Dayal
RAGHUHAR DAYAL
J.-Raj
Kishore Tewari,
J.
appellant in this appeal by special leave, was occupying certain premises as sub-tenant of Susil Chandra
Banerjee, under a registered lease dated April 10,
1954. His tenancy commenced from April 1, 1954.
The rent fixed was Rs. 220 per mensem. SubsequentJ
•
l
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
123
ly it was reduced to Rs. 205 by an agreement dated
1963
June 9, 1954. The tenancy was monthly.
Raj Kishore
Susil Chandra Banerjee was the tenant of GovindaTewari
ram Bhansali from September 15, 1943, at a monthly
v.
rental of Rs. 153 plus certain other charges. On Govinda Ram
June 16, 1955, the landlord obtained a decree of ejectBhansa/i
ment against Susi! Chandra Banerjee. In view of
sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Raghubar Dayal
Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (Act XVII
J.
of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, the appellant
became the tenant of the landlord after the determination of the tenancy of Susi! Chandra Banerjee.
On March 19, 1957, the land-lord respondent
gave a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver
possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day
of April 1957, on the ground that he, being the statutory tenant, had not paid rents to him since June 16,
1955, and , as such, was not entitled to any protection
under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956
(Act XII of 1956).
Subsequently, on June 10, 1957,
the respondent instituted the suit for ejectment of the
appellant from the premises. The suit was resisted
by the appellant on various grounds. His defence
was however struck off due to certain default. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on December 15, 1959.
An appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful. The
High Court refused to give leave to appeal to this
Court.
Thereafter, the appellant obtained special
leave from this Court and filed the appeal.
The only point urged for the appellant is that the
notice of ejectment dated March 19, 1957, was invalid
in view of the fact that under the law the notice must
be to require the appellant to deliver possession on
the expiry of the month of tenancy, that the tenancy
was from the 16th of a month as the decree for ejectment against the tenant of the first degree was passed
on June 16, 1955, and that this notice required the
delivery of possession on the expiry of the last day
of April. We may say that this point was not raised
in the written statement.' It was however allowed to
be raised in the appellate Court but was repelled.
1963
Raj Kishore
Tewari
v.
Govinda Ram
Bhansa/i
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
The only point to determine in this appeal is the
date from which the tenancy of the appellant vis-a-vis
the respondent commenced. The relevant portion of
sub-s.(2) of s. 13 of the Act is:
"(2} Where any premises or any part thereof
Raghubar Daya/
J.
have been or has been sub-let by 'a tenant of the
first degree' or by 'a tenant inferior to a tenant
of the first degree', as defined in explanation to
sub-section (I), and the sub-lease is binding on
the landlord of such last mentioned tenant, if
the tenancy of such tenant in either case is lawfully determined otherwise than by virtue of a
decree in a suit obtained by the landlord by reason
of any of the grounds specified in clause (h) of
the proviso to sub-section (I) of section 12, the
sub-lessee shall be deemed to be a tenant in
respect of such premises or part, as the case
may be, holding directly under the landlord of
the tenant whose tenancy has been determined,
on terms and conditions on which the sub-lessee
would have held under the tenant if the tenancy
of the latter had not been so determined."
There is nothing in these provisions which should
persuade us to hold, as urged for the appellant,
that the sub-tenant becomes a tenant of the landlord
from the date on which the tenancy of the tenant
against whom a decree for ejectment is passed is
determined. The provisions only lay down that the
sub-tenant would become the tenant of the landlord
if the tenancy-in-chief is determined lawfully. On the
other hand, this sub-section lays down that the subtenant would be tenant on the terms and conditions on
which the sub-lessee would have held under the tenant
if the tenancy of the tenant had not been determined.
This means that the terms and conditions of the tenancy
between the erstwhile sub-tenant and the landlord
continue to be the same which were the terms and
conditions of the sub-tenancv. Such terms and conditions of the tenancy in tlie case of the appellant
were that he was to be a monthly tenant on the payment of a certain rent and that his tenancy was to
-
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
125
commence from the first day of April 1954. It is
1963
clear therefore that his tenancy was by the calendar
month. It commenced on the first day of the month
Raj Kishore
and expired on the last day of the month. This
Tewari
period of monthly tenancy was in no way affected
v.
by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 13 whose effect Govinda Ram
was simply this that the sub-tenant instead of being
Bhansa/i
sub-tenant of the tenant who had been ejected, got
-
a direct connection with the landlord and became Raghubar Dayal
his tenant-in-chief or, as the Act describes, tenant in
J.
the first degree. The statutory provision just brought
about a change in the landlord of the sub-tenant. The
proprietor-landlord took the place of the tenantin-chief from whom the sub-tenant had secured the
tenancy.
We are therefore of opinion that the High Court
was right in rejecting the contention of the appellant
with respect to the invalidity of the notice for ejectment dated March 19, 1957. The result is that the
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
THE GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD.
v.
THE LIFE INSURANCE COR_PORATION OF
INDIA
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAo, K.N.
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), s. 7(1). If
amounts representing dividends declared fall within
"assets and
liabilities" of controlled
business--Compensation and paid up
capital allocable for controlled business-Tribunals Jurisdiction to
set off-Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956, r. 12A (iv) and (vi)-
Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938)-Whether precludes challenge of
certified balance sheets-Interest on compensation.
On the enactment of the Life Insurance Corporation Act,
providing for the nationalisation of life insurance business, the
1963
October 18